Many exercise devices are known in the prior art. There are specific ones designed to assist users in performance of upper body exercises on support surfaces, such as a floor. These devices have several different designs.
One prior art design, disclosed in U.S. Pat. No. 6,773,379, U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2012/0238420, and U.S. Des. Pat. Nos. D653,714, D654,544 and D666,684, employs a solid base, a plurality of rollers, balls or wheels rotatably mounted to and extending below a bottom side of the solid base so as to movably support the base on the support surface, and a handle affixed on and extending above an upper side of the solid base such that the gripping portion of the handle is spaced above the solid base where it can be gripped by a user to guide the movable base across the support surface. One potential drawback of this design might be that the weight of the solid base could be excessive such that it tends to increase the resistance or drag of the device thus impeding it from moving freely across the support surface. Another potential drawback might be the height of the handle above the floor could be excessive due to its mounting arrangement which necessarily spaces it above the solid base in order to allow for insertion of fingers about the handle in order to grip it. The excessive height of the handle might cause tilting of the device from skewing or bias the force applied by the user more toward one set of the balls, rollers or wheels than the other during performance of exercises so as to further increase the resistance or drag of the device to moving freely across the surface.
Another prior art design, disclosed in U.S. Pat. No. 3,809,393, employs separate plate-like support members at opposite ends of a handle that are in turn supported by swivel casters. The provision of separate support members might reduce at least a portion of the excessive weight of a solid base as used in the prior art design discussed above. However, the employment of swivel casters might be a potential drawback that offsets the benefit from any weight savings in that the swivel casters might increase the resistance or drag of the device to moving freely across the surface. Also, another potential drawback might be the techniques of construction utilized in making the device of the cited patent. In one embodiment, the opposite end portions of the handle are rabbeted or notched in order to form joints between the handle and the separate support members. In the other embodiment, bores that receive the opposite end portions of the handle are formed completely through the middle of the separate support members in order to form joints between the handle and separate support members. These techniques of construction might result in weakening the structural integrity of either the handle or support members when the device is called on to support the upper body weight of the user during use of the device.
Accordingly, there remains a need for an innovation that will overcome these potential drawbacks of the known prior art and any problems that remain unsolved.